MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006934755 · doi:10.1080/0886571x.2019.1704671

When Relationships are the Trigger: The Paradox of Safety and Connection in Child and Youth Care

2020· article· en· W3006934755 on OpenAlexaff
Angélique Jenney

Bibliographic record

VenueResidential Treatment for Children & Youth · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationHarmIntervention (counseling)Context (archaeology)NursingHealth carePsychologyMeaning (existential)Positive Youth DevelopmentMedicineSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychotherapistComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considerations of safety have long been at the forefront of work with children and youth in out-of-home care, though the conceptualization has evolved significantly over the years. In particular, the awareness of safety as a fundamental component of relational connection and well-being for children and youth in care has informed a new paradigm for these environments. The introduction of Trauma-Informed Care (TIC) has resulted in more in-depth explorations of the meaning of safety for both young people and their carers in order to promote both organizational and individual health. Determining what safety means for individuals both within and outside of this system of care is a critical point of connection and intervention. This practice concept paper reviews the existing literature addressing safety within child and youth care and child protection environments, including conceptualizing safety and intervention approaches which emphasize the development of safety vocabularies and skills of safety planning with children and youth who have experienced harm within the context of relationships. Using the lens of child and youth care environments, the application of these concepts is considered at the level of improved practice and future opportunities for research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResidential Treatment for Children & YouthSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207